Go John Gee! Go John Gee!

[gtaggart]

Don Bradley:

Actually Don, if you examine the manuscripts, youâ??ll find that there is no consistency to the placement of the characters. Sometimes they correspond with the beginning of a paragraph. Sometimes they are found placed between the first and second lines of a paragraph. Sometimes they are placed between lines right in the middle of a sentence. In the case I document above, it is apparent that the scribe began writing the character roughly at the bottom of the second line and then, when it became apparent that he would run out of space, he was forced to finish the morpheme by moving up (not sideways) to the unoccupied space in the indentation above the â??Iâ?. If there were no text already on the page, there would obviously be no logical reason for the scribe to curve the morpheme upwards in avoidance of something.

Bottom line: there is no â??problemâ? in my reading of this particular evidence. (I donâ??t recall Metcalfe giving an explanation for this, but if he is failing to acknowledge that the character was written after the text, I will be very interested to hear his contra-explanation.) This one is entirely a â??no-brainerâ? for an amateur, let alone a professional textual critic. Itâ??s obvious what has happened. The other cases make it much more difficult to tell if the characters were written after the English text. However, I find it strange that there are several cases where the character seems to appear quite randomly, between lines in the middle of a sentence with no discernible demarcation of content at that point. To simply say that the characters marked the beginning of paragraphs is an entirely inaccurate and simplistic explanation of what is seen in the manuscripts.

Will, Brent offered his apologetic on ZLMB a few years ago. Here's one thread with photos. I haven't been able to track down the others. Hope this helps.

[William Schryver]

I presume, then, that you consider it as least as much a no-brainer that the ink-change of page 1 of MS 1, the widening margins (to make room for the characters) in MS 2, and the character-with-no-translation at the end of MS 3 all militate against the notion that the characters were written after the English text.

-CK

I can see no other explanation.

Again, I'm not trying to make apologetic hay (as it were) with my observations regarding this character from Ms. #1. I just think it is obvious that it was written after the English text. Then again, we know Ms. #1 is a later document than Mss. #2 and #3. I know Metcalfe wants to argue that the 2:7 - 2:18 portions of Ms. #1 are a later "translation" session. But I consider that a stretch. We know Ms. #2 continued beyond its four extant pages -- it ends in the middle of a sentence in 2:6. We have no idea how far it went. And this particular character that appears to have been written after the English text is in the portion of Ms. #1 that comes after 2:6. I think the latter portion of Ms. #1 is also copied from an earlier document -- either Ms. #2 or a Ms. #Q.

I've made it clear that I don't have a "unified theory" to explain these KEPA manuscripts. It's just that I can see evidence that seems to conflict with Metcalfe's interpretations. Despite the common emendations in Mss. #2 and #3, I think #2 is earlier (and is a copy of an even older manuscript), followed by #3, followed by #1.

[William Schryver]

Will, Brent offered his apologetic on ZLMB a few years ago. Here's one thread with photos. I haven't been able to track down the others. Hope this helps.

Greg,

I'm familiar with Brent's arguments in that thread. However, he does not address this particular case. He focuses on the cases to which CK refers above. I don't disagree with his arguments in these other cases. I think his interpretation is correct. I'm not aware of whether or not he has attempted to address this particular case from the Phelps/Parrish Ms. #1. If he passes through and checks out the thread, perhaps he will clarify that.

[DonBradley]

Don Bradley:

Actually Don, if you examine the manuscripts, youâ??ll find that there is no consistency to the placement of the characters. Sometimes they correspond with the beginning of a paragraph. Sometimes they are found placed between the first and second lines of a paragraph. Sometimes they are placed between lines right in the middle of a sentence.

Will, my observation has nothing to do with whether the scribe consistently places the character next to the first or second line of the text. Rather, I observed that each marginal character or character string is paired with a discrete paragraph, and that if the text had already been written, then the natural place for a lengthy character string would have been before the first line of the text, where the indentation allowed room for such a string. Why, in your explanation, would the scribe have placed the character string on the second line, where there wasn't room for it, rather than on the first line, where there was?

In the case I document above, it is apparent that the scribe began writing the character roughly at the bottom of the second line and then, when it became apparent that he would run out of space, he was forced to finish the morpheme by moving up (not sideways) to the unoccupied space in the indentation above the â??Iâ?.

It does appear that the scribe slanted the character string due to space considerations. However, it doesn't follow that what he was attempting to avoid was the already-written text. If, as seems evident, the margins were drawn first, the scribe could have slanted the character string upward to minimize how much he invaded the space intended for the text on the right side of the margin. And, as CK has pointed out, he could also have curved the character string upward so that it would fit in the indented area of the first line that he anticipated writing, rather than in the second-line space that was to contain text.

However, I find it strange that there are several cases where the character seems to appear quite randomly, between lines in the middle of a sentence with no discernible demarcation of content at that point. To simply say that the characters marked the beginning of paragraphs is an entirely inaccurate and simplistic explanation of what is seen in the manuscripts.

I'm well aware that the text is sometimes broken in mid-sentence. I used the term "paragraph" for convenience to refer to chunks of text. It's quite clear that the text is cut into segments, with indentations at the start of a segment and a line break at the end, and that the segments are juxtaposed with characters to the left of the margin.

BTW, however "strange" this may seem to you, it makes perfect sense if Joseph Smith represented the text to the right as the translation of the character to the left. And the "paragraph" divisions of the text otherwise make no sense at all.

Don

[Hawkmoon]

With me? Heck, you have trouble talking at all.

Don

Maybe, but I appear to type just fine.

[DonBradley]

Maybe, but I appear to type just fine.

The fingers work alright. It's their controller who is questionable.

Don

[Hawkmoon]

The fingers work alright. It's their controller who is questionable.

Don

I know, I know... the Church and their dang jedi-mind control tricks. Someday, I will break free!!

[cdowis]

Greg,

I'm familiar with Brent's arguments in that thread. However, he does not address this particular case. He focuses on the cases to which CK refers above. I don't disagree with his arguments in these other cases. I think his interpretation is correct. I'm not aware of whether or not he has attempted to address this particular case from the Phelps/Parrish Ms. #1.

Can I assume this rather esoteric discussion actually revolves around the issue whether this is a dictation from JS as he translated the BOA.

This appears to be the basis of a disagreement between Brent who believes that this may be the actual transcription of the BOA translation, and Gee who rejects that idea.

Seems that the evidence is mixed.

And you know my position, as outlined in the ZLMB discussion.

[William Schryver]

Don:

Will, my observation has nothing to do with whether the scribe consistently places the character next to the first or second line of the text. Rather, I observed that each marginal character or character string is paired with a discrete paragraph ...

That is precisely what I am saying is not the case. The characters are not always associated with a discrete paragraph. It is especially evident with Williams' Ms. #2. The final two characters at the bottom of the first page are not clearly associated with the text. They appear to have been placed entirely at random in relationship to the text. They are not aligned with a paragraph break, nor the beginning of a sentence, nor even a specific line.

Do you even have access to any of the images? Or are you just going on what you've been told?

It's quite clear that the text is cut into segments, with indentations at the start of a segment and a line break at the end, and that the segments are juxtaposed with characters to the left of the margin.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. The conditions you describe are simply not present throughout the manuscripts. Your description might be consistent with the handful of images from Ms. #3 that Metcalfe has posted on the internet, but they are not a valid description of Ms. #2, which is also one of the evidences that Ms. #2 is an earlier document than Ms. #3.

And the morpheme beside Abr. 2:7 in the Phelps/Parrish manuscript was obviously written after the English text. To argue otherwise is just silly. It's no different than some of the weak apologetic arguments of the past.

So, go convince Metcalfe to let you look at the photos of Ms. #2, or go up to the church archives and ask to view the KEP, and then come back and we can have a nice conversation about this stuff. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

[Pahoran]

Actually, CK has recently written a lengthy reflection on rudeness and personal attacks in Internet discussion, and on his intention to avoid dignifying them with a response.

Has he? Where?

And are you sure we are talking about the same CK? As in, California Kid?

If so, then that would seem to be a rather convenient escape clause, wouldn't it?

And if you'd care to be civil, Pahoran, you could easily put CK in the position of having to respond to your arguments. If you won't do that, then it rather appears that you, not he, is attempting to avoid further discussion--at least if doing so would require you to stick to substance.

Don

Yeah, that's right. I'm so terrified of CK's brilliance that I'm deliberately tripping the no-response rule he has decided to impose, and which I have never before heard of. After all, my style in responding to him is so completely different to what I use the rest of the time, right?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cdowis]

Don:

That is precisely what I am saying is not the case. The characters are not always associated with a discrete paragraph. It is especially evident with Williams' Ms. #2. The final two characters at the bottom of the first page are not clearly associated with the text. They appear to have been placed entirely at random in relationship to the text. They are not aligned with a paragraph break, nor the beginning of a sentence, nor even a specific line.

Do you require a specific alignment to be "associated" with a text? Assuming that the characters are written after the text, the association with the text can be very loose since the translation itself is the emphasis.

If these characters are NOT associated with the text, what the heck are they doing here in the manuscript at all? What is the purpose of the margin line, if not to place the characters separately from the text.

If you do not see any association between the characters and the text, I am VERY interested in your explanation of the purpose of these characters.

Just random doodles?

Do you even have access to any of the images? Or are you just going on what you've been told?

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. The conditions you describe are simply not present throughout the manuscripts. Your description might be consistent with the handful of images from Ms. #3 that Metcalfe has posted on the internet, but they are not a valid description of Ms. #2, which is also one of the evidences that Ms. #2 is an earlier document than Ms. #3.

And the morpheme beside Abr. 2:7 in the Phelps/Parrish manuscript was obviously written after the English text. To argue otherwise is just silly. It's no different than some of the weak apologetic arguments of the past.

And exactly what does that prove? You continue to emphasize that they are written AFTER the text, but are strangely silent on what the characters represent, and why in some cases evidence shows that they were before and sometimes afterward.

It is silly to continue to make these statements and refuse to tell us.....PLEASE... what this all means.

I have stated my case, and will be happy to do so again in the absence of any response.

So, go convince Metcalfe to let you look at the photos of Ms. #2, or go up to the church archives and ask to view the KEP, and then come back and we can have a nice conversation about this stuff. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

Please bring us clarity.

[Chris Smith]

Will, I think Don was talking about MS #1. That is where the set of characters you were addressing is located. And in that manuscript, sets of characters do seem to be associated with individual indented sections.

This phenomenon is evident in the other manuscripts as well, but to a lesser degree.

The final two characters at the bottom of the first page are not clearly associated with the text. They appear to have been placed entirely at random in relationship to the text. They are not aligned with a paragraph break, nor the beginning of a sentence, nor even a specific line.

That's not true. Look at the second-to-last character on that page. It is associated with the line "And it was done after the manner of the Egyptians and it". Notice the capital "A" at the beginning of the line. Notice also that the previous line has white space after the word "alter", indicating the end of a section. (Williams generally writes all the way to the right-hand margin.) So while it's not a natural sentence break, it's pretty clear that it's an intentional division in the text created for the purpose of starting a new translation-section.

The last character on that page is also associated with a new sentence, which starts with a capital "I". Williams isn't much for indentation, but that doesn't mean that he isn't creating a new discrete textual unit at this locus.

Do you even have access to any of the images? Or are you just going on what you've been told?

...

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

...

Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

Pot, meet kettle.

-CK

[Chris Smith]

Has he? Where?

And are you sure we are talking about the same CK? As in, California Kid?

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/discuss/v...torder=asc&

Dare you venture onto the forbidden board to see for yourself?

After all, my style in responding to him is so completely different to what I use the rest of the time, right?

That's actually part of the problem. Everybody slips once in a while, which is understandable. I just don't feel like wading through vituperative post after vituperative post.

-CK

[Pahoran]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/discuss/v...torder=asc&

Dare you venture onto the forbidden board to see for yourself?

Dare I venture? Well yes, I do. Who ever said it was "forbidden?" I have spent a reasonable amount of time there. I have personal experience of that place. I know whereof I speak.

That's actually part of the problem. Everybody slips once in a while, which is understandable. I just don't feel like wading through vituperative post after vituperative post.

Which is rather remarkable, given your enthusiastic recommendation of Shades' obsession board. My posts here are tame compared to the normal behaviour of its leading citizens. Frankly, it takes a rather brazen kind of hypocrisy to complain about my posts while pretending that Shades' Sty is a model of decorum.

Nevertheless, out of respect for your highly selective sensibilities, here are the salient points of my previous post again. I thought about editing them to the standard you evidently prefer--that of Shades' Sty--but I don't want to attract the wrath of the mods by lowering the tone around here, so I'm taking out the bits you object to only when you're on the receiving end.

The point, as Nibley himself clearly points out in a number of places, is not that any of these stories represent "what really happened" to or with Abraham, but that they represent a genuine textual tradition which dropped out of sight a good while before 1836.

And:

You will find that the (heh heh) "critics" rely upon "parallels" as slender as common two-word phrases, while Nibley relies on parallels of specific, detailed situations. The famous encounter between Enoch and Mahijah (Book of Moses) and Enoch and MHWY (Book of Enoch) being the first one that came to my mind. Are you going to tell us, with a dead straight face, that that is no more surprising than "forts of security" and "places of security?"

There, will that do?

Regards,

Pahoran

[William Schryver]

Will, I think Don was talking about MS #1. That is where the set of characters you were addressing is located. And in that manuscript, sets of characters do seem to be associated with individual indented sections.

This phenomenon is evident in the other manuscripts as well, but to a lesser degree.

That's not true. Look at the second-to-last character on that page. It is associated with the line "And it was done after the manner of the Egyptians and it". Notice the capital "A" at the beginning of the line. Notice also that the previous line has white space after the word "alter", indicating the end of a section. (Williams generally writes all the way to the right-hand margin.) So while it's not a natural sentence break, it's pretty clear that it's an intentional division in the text created for the purpose of starting a new translation-section.

The last character on that page is also associated with a new sentence, which starts with a capital "I". Williams isn't much for indentation, but that doesn't mean that he isn't creating a new discrete textual unit at this locus.

Pot, meet kettle.

-CK

CK,

I'm not sure what you mean by the pot/kettle comment. I do have high-res images of the documents in question. I would love to post extracts from them in order to prove my point, but I don't have license at present to do so.

I disagree with your contention that the hieratic characters are always clearly associated with a corresponding paragraph. It simply isn't true. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. People with a lot more professional credentials than myself will ultimately sustain my claims in this respect.

But (and this is in response to cdowis' questions) I'm not really trying to establish any specific apologetic claim by making these observations. I mean, it's obvious that the people who produced these documents believed there was a relationship between the BoB characters and the Book of Abraham. No one is disputing that. I'm only arguing that it is not a valid argument; not an "evidence-supported" argument to claim that the documents make a clear and specific association between the characters in the left margin and the English text. In several cases in Williams' Ms. #2, the characters appear to be placed with much uncertainty -- as though the scribe didn't have any idea what their specific relationship was to the English text in the body of the document. Ms. #3 simply perpetuates the approximate placement of the characters in Ms. #2.

I suppose the underlying thrust of this entire discussion is that Mss. #2 and #3 are not transcripts of an oral dictation. I don't believe the body of text-critical evidence will support that argument, contrary to the critics' claims. I understand that Metcalfe is still adamant regarding that interpretation. I do not believe it will stand up to close scrutiny, and that professional text-critical analysis will establish that both manuscripts are copies of an earlier document -- notwithstanding the presence of the common emendations. The weight of the evidence supporting the "visual copies" argument will exceed the weight of the evidence supporting "dictation".

What will this mean in the bigger picture of the Book of Abraham controversy? That remains to be seen. It certainly won't prove that Joseph Smith knew how to translate Egyptian.

[Chris Smith]

CK,

I'm not sure what you mean by the pot/kettle comment. I do have high-res images of the documents in question. I would love to post extracts from them in order to prove my point, but I don't have license at present to do so.

That was a reference to "blowing smoke", actually.

I disagree with your contention that the hieratic characters are always clearly associated with a corresponding paragraph.

I didn't use the word "always". It's pretty evident that, at least in the case of the second character in manuscript #1, the English text to which it corresponds is in the middle of the paragraph (as indicated by the little "2" superscripted next to the name Abraham in the English text). But the scribes do generally seem to have paired each grouping of characters with a block of text.

But (and this is in response to cdowis' questions) I'm not really trying to establish any specific apologetic claim by making these observations. I mean, it's obvious that the people who produced these documents believed there was a relationship between the BoB characters and the Book of Abraham. No one is disputing that. I'm only arguing that it is not a valid argument; not an "evidence-supported" argument to claim that the documents make a clear and specific association between the characters in the left margin and the English text.

What about the first line in Manuscripts 2 and 3? The association seems pretty clear in that case. The superscripted numbers in the first paragraph of MS #1 also make the association pretty clear. And, as I noted above, the layout of the manuscripts generally does associate each grouping of characters with a distinct unit of English text. This is particularly evident in the much-indented MS #1.

I suppose the underlying thrust of this entire discussion is that Mss. #2 and #3 are not transcripts of an oral dictation. I don't believe the body of text-critical evidence will support that argument, contrary to the critics' claims. I understand that Metcalfe is still adamant regarding that interpretation. I do not believe it will stand up to close scrutiny, and that professional text-critical analysis will establish that both manuscripts are copies of an earlier document -- notwithstanding the presence of the common emendations. The weight of the evidence supporting the "visual copies" argument will exceed the weight of the evidence supporting "dictation".

I see a reasonable body of evidence pointing in both directions. I haven't come to a hard-and-fast conclusion one way or the other, though my instinct is to avoid hypothesizing the existence of a mysterious "Q" document if at all possible.

-CK

[DonBradley]

No, Pahoran, your response to CK wasn't different than how you usually are. You are pretty much always abrasive, obnoxious, and deliberately insulting. And that's precisely the sort of posting CK has expressed his intention of not engaging. If you really want to engage him on these issues, you'll have to be polite. If you aren't willing to be even minimally polite, don't hide behind the claim that it's CK who is unwilling to engage the substance of the discussion.

Don

[Pahoran]

No, Pahoran, your response to CK wasn't different than how you usually are. You are pretty much always abrasive, obnoxious, and deliberately insulting.

And one way I could get worse would be to personally attack people by telling them how they are pretty much always abrasive, obnoxious, and deliberately insulting.

Up to now, I haven't done that. It's rather considerably beneath me.

And that's precisely the sort of posting CK has expressed his intention of not engaging. If you really want to engage him on these issues, you'll have to be polite. If you aren't willing to be even minimally polite, don't hide behind the claim that it's CK who is unwilling to engage the substance of the discussion.

Don

So poor little CK needs you to board nanny in his behalf. I see.

You are not following the thread, Donandagus. See my post no. 239.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DonBradley]

Will,

I wanted to check my KEP images prior to posting. However, my copies of the relevant images are at home, and I am not.

I may be mistaken about what is an entirely consistent pattern and what is not. However, in the manuscript in question, isn't it the case that the characters are juxtaposed with indented segments of text? Whether there are exceptions to this general pattern or whether it is true of other manuscripts is of dubious relevance to whether the character string was slanted upward to avoid overly invading the right side of the margin and to overlap the area of expected indentation.

To simply declare the latter possibility wrong by fiat as you've done isn't evidence, argument, or anything else with logical or convincing force. If you can address it with an argument, rather than by fiat or red herrings regarding my description of the character-text juxtapositions, please do. If you can't, I guess your present strategy is the best that can be hoped for.

Don

[DonBradley]

And one way I could get worse would be to personally attack people by telling them how they are pretty much always abrasive, obnoxious, and deliberately insulting.

Up to now, I haven't done that. It's rather considerably beneath me.

To offer an accurate description of another's posting style would not be beneath you, Pahoran, but considerably above you. You deal in false, snide insinuations rather than correct assertions.

And my description of your posting style isn't an attack or an insult. It is accurate, and there are many among even your fellow-apologists who would agree.

I'm not saying you don't post substance as well. You're one of the better informed apologists. Were this not so, the mods would have banned you ages ago for your unnecessary noise and personal attacks.

Don

[Pahoran]

Don,

I was going to respond in detail to your abusive torrent of falsehoods, but I've decided not to come down to your level.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DonBradley]

Don,

I was going to respond in detail to your abusive torrent of falsehoods, but I've decided not to come down to your level.

Regards,

Pahoran

Quit the headstand and come on up!

Regards,

Don

[Ray Agostini]

No, Pahoran, your response to CK wasn't different than how you usually are. You are pretty much always abrasive, obnoxious, and deliberately insulting. And that's precisely the sort of posting CK has expressed his intention of not engaging. If you really want to engage him on these issues, you'll have to be polite. If you aren't willing to be even minimally polite, don't hide behind the claim that it's CK who is unwilling to engage the substance of the discussion.

Don

Don,

For what it's worth, and it's probably not worth much to you, I must confess that Pahoran often has me in stitches with his replies, of laughter that is. He hits just the right nerve with exmos and sometimes it's something they need. Had to say that. Lying down and constantly getting kicked would rile the most placid Labrador.

[DonBradley]

Don,

For what it's worth, and it's probably not worth much to you, I must confess that Pahoran often has me in stitches with his replies, of laughter that is. He hits just the right nerve with exmos and sometimes it's something they need. Had to say that. Lying down and constantly getting kicked would rile the most placid Labrador.

Well, Ray, they say there's no accounting for taste.

I don't see someone like Kevin Barney as Casper Milquetoast, nor do I remotely see Pahoran's hostility as merely defensive, warranted, or productive of anything but ill will.

But, to each his own.

Don

[William Schryver]

CK:

What about the first line in Manuscripts 2 and 3? The association seems pretty clear in that case. The superscripted numbers in the first paragraph of MS #1 also make the association pretty clear. And, as I noted above, the layout of the manuscripts generally does associate each grouping of characters with a distinct unit of English text. This is particularly evident in the much-indented MS #1.

Iâ??m not disputing the fact that, generally speaking, the characters are associated with the commencement of a new paragraph. Especially in Mss. #1 and #3, and to a lesser extent in Ms. #2. However, it is not always the case â?? and I find that very strange. It just doesnâ??t make sense to me why, on occasion, there doesnâ??t appear to be a correspondence between a new character and a clearly-demarcated new thought. I donâ??t know why that would be, and I donâ??t know what it means; what it can be interpreted to mean. It just seems to be at odds with the idea that there are scribes taking down an oral dictation that is predicated on each character supposedly translating into a separate thought.

Now, as far as Ms. #1 is concerned â?? we know that it dates to a later time than Mss. #2 and #3. It is indisputably a copy of an earlier document. I donâ??t consider it to be a significant issue either way, except as regards the text from 2:7 â?? 2:18. Thatâ??s why it is potentially significant that the hieratic character at 2:7 appears to have been written after the English text.

I see a reasonable body of evidence pointing in both directions. I haven't come to a hard-and-fast conclusion one way or the other, though my instinct is to avoid hypothesizing the existence of a mysterious "Q" document if at all possible.

Iâ??m not sure I understand why your â??instinctâ? would be to â??avoid hypothesizing the existence of a mysterious â??Qâ? document if at all possible.â? Why is that? I, for one, donâ??t see that it considerably weakens the criticsâ?? argument vis-